The Purpose Of Marriage?

[cinepro]

You are correct that in addition to the fundamental purpose I suggested (of which sexual fidelity is a key factor and a state interest that has little or no bearing on gay relationships apart from the health exception I mentioned), the stability of parental relationships is also a fundamental purpose behind marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This link says that 40% of all births are to unmarried women. 

 

Again, how does gay marriage factor in to the "stability of parental relationships"?  They can't have kids.  They can adopt someone else's kids, or they can make a biological child with someone to whom they are not married.  But that isn't a gay marriage issue.  It's part of the bigger issue of people having kids outside of wedlock.  And based on the above statistic, I would suspect that gays having biological kids are a tiny percentage of that statistic. 

 

You may have identified a problem, but you're putting your time and energy into fighting the tiniest and most insignificant part of the problem.

[wenglund]

I think marriage should only be legal if all of the following requirements are met:

 

1.  The couple is heterosexual

2.  Both partners can prove fertility 

3.  The couple signs an affidavit that they will have children within a 10 years period.  If not, their marriage will be annulled - - adoption doesn't count because marriage is about the sexual act and its consequences.

 

I think the above would exclude all marriages that do not involve the birth of children.  No more infertile or over-50 couples getting married.  In fact, this should prevent anyone over 45 from being allowed to be married.

 

Seems like a perfect system to me.

 

Unfortunately, unlike with the traditional system of marriage, the stringency and managerial nightmare of your proposed "system" is more likely to promote rather than limit illegitimate births, thereby thwarting one of the fundamental purposes and state interest of marriage. But, it is no less inane than what many are propose fon behalf of gays.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

In another thread, Stargazer made the salient point: "As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call 'marriage.'" (See HERE)

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide, I believe that Stargazers point is worth further vetting, if for no other reason than to provide compelling rationale going forward for opponents, such as myself, to restrict our own use of the word "marriage" to the traditional and longstanding legal sense of the word, regardless of what the courts and other people may chose to do. 

 

​To me, the rationale goes beyond the desire to conserve the traditional meaning, and includes the critical need to remain mindful of the core purpose for marriage in the eyes of God as well as the law, which seems to have been lost or obscured midst the fog of public debate on the matter.

 

Too often these day people conflate the trappings of marriage with the purpose of marriage. They figure that since love motivates couples to get married and hopefully stay married, and marriage ceremonies are often filled with expressions of romantic love, then marriage is all about romantic love. 

 

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wait, are you talking about the "traditional meaning" of marriage or the "traditional LDS meaning" of marriage, as both are loaded terms.

 

If we are speaking "traditional marriage," then I suggest you reacquaint yourself more fully with the historical context of marriage, with it's "traditional" roots in the maintenance of the bloodlines of nobility, the use of marriage as a tool to form political alliances, marriage as a means of defining political succession, marriage as a tool for securing inheritances, etc., etc. You are essentially ignoring the historically accurate "traditional" causes that led to the establishment of marriage in the first place in favor of this white-washed, divinely ordained order that never was, at least in the eyes of historians, archeologists and other experts in the field.

[california boy]

I am sorry but your proposition doesn't make sense on a number of levels.

 

For one, last I checked, neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have been forced, by social stigma or otherwise, to marry someone of the opposite sex, let alone have children together. Since shotgun weddings have been outlawed many decades back, marriages have been the result of consent--a principle of primary importance to gay activists. So, if gays married into unstable mixed relationships and decided to have children, it was by choice.

 

It has also been their choice whether or not to stay in and stabilize those mixed marriages with children. And, were gays so vulnerable to social pressure and stigma as you suggest, then the stigma against divorce would have led them to remain in and stabilize those marriage. The fact that many have chosen otherwise, somewhat negates your proposition. 

 

For another, since stability is only substantively relevant as a government interest in cases where there are children, it makes no sense to, for stability purposes, legally promote relationships that are biologically ill-equipped to have children, and where those few cases that do have children are the product of gays freely choosing to destabilize and break up prior relationships, let alone are notoriously unstable in their own right even with children. Heterosexuals have serious problems with instability and divorce as it is, it would be inane to add into the legal solemnizing mix a group that is far more prone to divorce and instability.

 

I could go on and on, but...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

And I am going to cut you a little slack on this post as well since you are not gay and evidently have no idea how much shame and social pressure put on gays by both society and the church in the past.  If you think social, religious community and family pressure is not a real thing, just imagine telling everyone you know something that can ostracize you from all of those you know and love.  Yes things have changed and are much better now.  But you don't have to go back very far in time when even the church was pretty aggressive in treating its gay members badly.

 

Wade, a lot of your ideas and opinions come from a place of ignorance.  You seem to only see things from your own point of view.  Are you really not aware of the way society treated gays in the past?

[wenglund]

I am going to cut you a little slack on your views and understanding of what you think marriage is since you have never been married.  I think your views of marriage only being about sex and having children is probably a common view among those who are single.  

 

I will return the favor by cutting you some slack for terribly misconstruing my belief about marriage since you have oft demonstrated barrier to comprehension. I didn't say that marriage was "only about sex and having children," but instead I said it is a "fundamental purpose," while likewise agreeing that stability is also a fundamental purpose, and I even went on to note that love is an element or trapping of marriage. 

 

Since the remainder of your post was built on straw, there would be no value verbally threshing it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Please SEE the 14th Amendment.

 

I have. It is about citizen rights and equal protection. It makes no mention of marriage, nor does it address the legal definition of marriage, let alone the purpose of marriage, as I so indicated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sethpayne]

Unfortunately, unlike with the traditional system of marriage, the stringency and managerial nightmare of your proposed "system" is more likely to promote rather than limit illegitimate births, thereby thwarting one of the fundamental purposes and state interest of marriage. But, it is no less inane than what many are propose fon behalf of gays.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I forgot to add #4.

 

4.  Any unmarried individuals who have children outside wedlock are to be imprisoned for a period of no less than 10 years.  Their illegitimate children shall be sent to countries where sanity rules the day and are to be adopted by legally married gay couples.

[mormonnewb]

In another thread, Stargazer made the salient point: "As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call 'marriage.'" (See HERE)

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide, I believe that Stargazers point is worth further vetting, if for no other reason than to provide compelling rationale going forward for opponents, such as myself, to restrict our own use of the word "marriage" to the traditional and longstanding legal sense of the word, regardless of what the courts and other people may chose to do. 

 

​To me, the rationale goes beyond the desire to conserve the traditional meaning, and includes the critical need to remain mindful of the core purpose for marriage in the eyes of God as well as the law, which seems to have been lost or obscured midst the fog of public debate on the matter.

 

Too often these day people conflate the trappings of marriage with the purpose of marriage. They figure that since love motivates couples to get married and hopefully stay married, and marriage ceremonies are often filled with expressions of romantic love, then marriage is all about romantic love. 

 

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You really have sex on the brain, don't you?  Because you've managed to boil life's most precious relationship down to a "Get-Out-of-Sex-Free-Card."  If the entire/primary/substantial point of marriage is to make sex legitimate, then it seems that we are trying to catch goldfish in a fishermen's net, because most of the marriages that we have currently legitimized have very little to do with sex.  So why does the state even bother to legitimize marriages where one of the partners is impotent, infirm or just plain uninterested?

 

And speaking of the state, why would it possibly care to legitimize ANY sexual union?  How does the sex act itself benefit the state?  I don't know if you've heard, but we can procreate without that act.  And when you take into account all of the time that people spend planning for, fantasizing about, and even executing the act, we'd be a MUCH more productive society if we banned sex altogether.  Now sure, there is some societal benefit to having happy citizens, but the state does not formally "legitimize" pleasurable activities.  So why is this one part of life so important that the state would step in to give its special sanction to it; provided, of course, that it is the "right" kind of sex?

 

And since we're on the topic (that you can't seem to leave alone), what is it about heterosexual sex that makes it so much better for SOCIETY than gay sex?  Once again, you probably haven't heard, but many heterosexual couples engage in the same behaviors as gay couples.  So why should the state specifically sanction "perversion" (your favorite term) if engaged in by a man and woman, but not if engaged in by two men or two women?  This would be like the law making it okay for a man to strike a woman, but outlawing a man striking another man or a woman striking another woman.  If the activity is not worthy of sanction, the fact that the "right people" are doing it, doesn't somehow change that fact.  Or would you only recognize those marriages where heterosexual couples are having the "right sex"?

 

From a theological standpoint, your argument that gay sex is icky MIGHT hold some water.  God certainly is free to have an opinion on any aspect of human behavior and decide, in His infinite wisdom, that some behavior is acceptable and others are not.  However, the state must actually have intellectually-sound reasons for making such distinctions.  In order for it to legitimize a certain activity if engaged in by one group of people but not if engaged in by another group of people, it must be able to demonstrate a benefit or harm to society that necessitates the distinction.  In the last five or six years alone, more than a dozen states have hired the best lawyers to make such arguments and not ONE of them has been found to be reasonable by a court of law.

 

Of course, this should not discourage you from trying to make your own reasonable arguments, but this, my friend, is not one of them.  Next!

Edited October 15, 2014 by mormonnewb

[sethpayne]

the stringency and managerial nightmare of your proposed "system" is more likely to promote rather than limit illegitimate births

 

 

Kind of like stigmatizing gay marriage and homosexuality generally is more likely to promote instability and promiscuity amongst homosexuals.  Heaven forbid the state recognizes their right to enter into a long-term monogamous committed relationship.

 

The horror!!!!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For one, last I checked, neither heterosexuals or homosexuals have been forced, by social stigma or otherwise, to marry someone of the opposite sex, let alone have children together. Since shotgun weddings have been outlawed many decades back, marriages have been the result of consent--a principle of primary importance to gay activists. So, if gays married into unstable mixed relationships and decided to have children, it was by choice.

No one is talking about force, but rather incentives. You claimed that the state was encouraging the destabilization and break-up of heterosexual parent relationships by legalizing same-sex relationships.

This is backwards. These relationships are breaking up because they are inherently unstable and in most cases shouldn't have been formed in the first place. In most cases these relationships were formed due to societal pressures for conformity and not having legitimate alternatives. Legitimizing same sex relationships discourages opposite orientation marriages and will reduce the number of these inherently unstable relationships and hence the number of children who find themselves in these relationships.

[wenglund]

This link says that 40% of all births are to unmarried women. 

 

Yes, that is disturbing, and indicative of the dilution in importance of marriage in modern society. 

 

Again, how does gay marriage factor in to the "stability of parental relationships"?  They can't have kids.  They can adopt someone else's kids, or they can make a biological child with someone to whom they are not married.  But that isn't a gay marriage issue.  It's part of the bigger issue of people having kids outside of wedlock.  And based on the above statistic, I would suspect that gays having biological kids are a tiny percentage of that statistic. 

 

You may have identified a problem, but you're putting your time and energy into fighting the tiniest and most insignificant part of the problem.

 

No. If anything I would like to keep the problem from getting bigger. But, for the purposes of this thread, I am just trying to rationally explain why I personally chose not to use the term "marriage" that it is increasing being used in relations to gays.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I forgot to add #4.

 

4.  Any unmarried individuals who have children outside wedlock are to be imprisoned for a period of no less than 10 years.  Their illegitimate children shall be sent to countries where sanity rules the day and are to be adopted by legally married gay couples.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I will return the favor by cutting you some slack for terribly misconstruing my belief about marriage since you have oft demonstrated barrier to comprehension. I didn't say that marriage was "only about sex and having children," but instead I said it is a "fundamental purpose," while likewise agreeing that stability is also a fundamental purpose, and I even went on to note that love is an element or trapping of marriage. 

 

Since the remainder of your post was built on straw, there would be no value verbally threshing it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Only a guy who has never been married would so easily dismiss some of the other fundamental purposes of marriage that I discussed as it relates to the plan of salvation and benefit to those involved.

[wenglund]

mormonnewb, on 15 Oct 2014 - 2:42 PM, said: 

So why does the state even bother to legitimize marriages where one of the partners is impotent, infirm or just plain uninterested?

 

You have it backwards. It would be unfeasible (a bother) for the government to police and micromanage exceptions to the rule.

 

 

And speaking of the state, why would it possibly care to legitimize ANY sexual union?  How does the sex act itself benefit the state?

 

There are at least two ways in which the state has a meaningful and subtantial interest in legitimizing hetero sex. 1) Because sex between a man and a women can result in conception of a child, and given the abundance of social ills that traditionally flow out of unwed births, the state has a cost and chaos saving interest in encouraging legitimate and discouraging illegitimate births. 2) Given that the survival and prosperity of the nation is somewhat dependent upon growth in population (most the Liberal social and entitlement programs are enormously dependent upon population growth), and since hetero sex is the only natural and cost effective means for creating and maintaining populations, the state has a vested interest in sex between men and women.

 

On the other hand, the state derives entirely no value from **** sex between men, or mutual masturbatory sex between women.

 

This seems so basic that I am embarrassed having to explain it to you. 

 

I don't know if you've heard, but we can procreate without that act.  And when you take into account all of the time that people spend planning for, fantasizing about, and even executing the act, we'd be a MUCH more productive society if we banned sex altogether.

 

If one analyzes the nominal, though costly rate of artificial conception as compared to the huge demand for population growth resulting from Liberal entitlement programs and Conservative economic development programs, the math should easily demonstrate the absurdity of your assertion/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

In another thread, Stargazer made the salient point: "As I've said before in this context, there is no gay marriage. There are solemnized relationships that some are pleased to call 'marriage.'" (See HERE)

 

Even though currently a super majority of states legally recognize solemnized relationships between gays, which they are pleased to call "marriage," and the trend appears to be headed towards legalization of the same nation-wide, I believe that Stargazers point is worth further vetting, if for no other reason than to provide compelling rationale going forward for opponents, such as myself, to restrict our own use of the word "marriage" to the traditional and longstanding legal sense of the word, regardless of what the courts and other people may chose to do. 

 

​To me, the rationale goes beyond the desire to conserve the traditional meaning, and includes the critical need to remain mindful of the core purpose for marriage in the eyes of God as well as the law, which seems to have been lost or obscured midst the fog of public debate on the matter.

 

Too often these day people conflate the trappings of marriage with the purpose of marriage. They figure that since love motivates couples to get married and hopefully stay married, and marriage ceremonies are often filled with expressions of romantic love, then marriage is all about romantic love. 

 

And, while in a way this may be true, at least in the eyes of the state, romantic love may be nice but irrelevant. The marital laws contain no litmus test for love, nor is it the state's concern whether or not couples falls in or out of romantic love. The state derives no direct benefit from the love, or the lack thereof, and thus it has no vested interest in therein. Love, then, is a trapping of marriage, and not the purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God).

 

Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same. Beyond health concerns, it has entirely no interest in gay sex, and thus no need to legitimize it through marriage. Hence, solemnizing gay relationships doesn't fit the purpose for marriage in the eyes of God and the law, and so it doesn't make sense to call such solemnization "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Your conclusions are based on your a priori religious beliefs which the state need not recognize based on our constitution.   Is it right for you to impose your religious parameters on others?

 

Second if "legitimate" sex and offspring are the main reason for marriage then what about couples unable to have children or those that choose not too.

 

And the state has pretty much concluded that in 2014 it has no business in the sex lives of its citizens.

[Teancum]

I agree that "romantic" love is not the purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

I completely disagree that "love" is not a purpose of marriage in the eyes of God.

 

 

 

Better said is you think that love is not important to God when it comes to marriage.  How you conclude this I have no idea.  But you really don't know what God thinks about this.

[Teancum]

No. I am distinguishing between the purpose of marriage and elements (healthy or otherwise) of marriage. Love, particularly Christlike love, is a desired element of marriage, though not the fundamental purpose for marriage in the eyes of the law and God.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Really?  How do you know this. Even with your LDS world view how do you know?  Provide scripture and comments from LDS GAs to back this up.  Really I think you are simply expressing your own opinion here and trying to justify it with your religious beliefs.

[WysteriaBlue]

There are so many talks about how the priesthood holders learn and develop the sensitivies, emapathy, tolerance, justice, listening skills, ability to lead, and moral authority and proper use of that authority within the bounds of a properly sealed and sanctified marriage...

 

I hope that all priesthood holders will use these skills to become better leaders, instructors, examples of loving partnerships with God and better men.

 

Just a thought to add to the discussion..

wb

 

Just a few examples:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/nurturing-marriage?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/honor-the-priesthood-and-use-it-well?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/history-and-organization-of-the-priesthood/lesson-9-duties-of-the-elder-and-the-high-priest?lang=eng

Edited October 15, 2014 by WysteriaBlue

[JLHPROF]

Better said is you think that love is not important to God when it comes to marriage.  How you conclude this I have no idea.  But you really don't know what God thinks about this.

 

I said no such thing.  I just differentiated between "romantic love" and "godly love".

And if you don't know the difference then I can't help you with that.

[Teancum]

While love should certainly exist in marriage, love is not the purpose of marriage.  It is obvious that one can love just as much without marriage and hence I have no sympathy for the gay marriage argument that those opposed to SSM are somehow preventing two people from loving each other.

 

Marriage is all about having children or raising a family or the possibility of that.  It's about selecting a person you feel will be the best partner and influence on your family or future family.

 

And no, I don't believe married couples without children should have their marriage licenses taken away.

 

Relative to the state, marriage is only a welfare issue. What type of relationship will benefit society the most and which is appropriate? The answer is obviously only a heterosexual relationship as such provides the proper male female role model for children in the relationship and those observing from outside the relationship.  We certainly don't give or want to give welfare benefits to everyone who wants them.

 

So let gays marry all they want, just don't force the state/society to recognize and benefit such marriages.

 

Once again a priori assumptions are all over this nonsense. I don't think you can back it up with LDS doctrine either.

[Teancum]

I said no such thing.  I just differentiated between "romantic love" and "godly love".

And if you don't know the difference then I can't help you with that.

 

 

Really? So I should not have romantic love for my wife but godly love whatever that means?  But perhaps romantic love in marriage can be a subset of Godly love.

[wenglund]

No one is talking about force, but rather incentives. You claimed that the state was encouraging the destabilization and break-up of heterosexual parent relationships by legalizing same-sex relationships.

This is backwards. These relationships are breaking up because they are inherently unstable and in most cases shouldn't have been formed in the first place. In most cases these relationships were formed due to societal pressures for conformity and not having legitimate alternatives. Legitimizing same sex relationships discourages opposite orientation marriages and will reduce the number of these inherently unstable relationships and hence the number of children who find themselves in these relationships.

 

Quite the contrary. Even in terms of incentives in the form of social pressure, there hasn't been much in the way of social pressure for gays to marry heterosexuals and have children with them (they have always had the option of remaining single), let alone social pressure for gays to break up their mixed marriages with children (including many who "discovered" their gayness after being married for years and heterosexually producing children) .

 

Certainly, nowadays, when the issue of legalizing solemnized gay relationships is in question  there is no pressure for gays to marry straights.

 

Whereas, there is social pressure against divorce where children are involved, regardless whether the marriages involved are mixed or not.

 

You mistakenly and irrelevantly assumed the opposite of the former, while ignoring the relevance of the latter--along with several other things I went on to mention.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

Really? So I should not have romantic love for my wife but godly love whatever that means?  But perhaps romantic love in marriage can be a subset of Godly love.

 

Perhaps it can, but romantic love is not a requisite for marriage.  God never required nor commanded it.

However he did require that a man love his wife.  Clearly God can see a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone.

 

And the scriptures are full of examples of both...

[wenglund]

Your conclusions are based on your a priori religious beliefs which the state need not recognize based on our constitution.   

 

Wrong. My conclusions are based on both secular and religious rationale expressed above..

 

Is it right for you to impose your religious parameters on others?

 

I have as much right as any citizen to vote and act according to the dictates of my conscience, my religious convictions, and my secular rationale.

 

However, a careful reading of my OP and follow-up comments would suggest that far from me wishing to impose anything others, I acknowledge that others (the courts in particular) have legally come to decisions on this matter contrary to how I believe, and whether you wish to call this their imposing their beliefs on me (I chose not to look at it that way), I accept and respect their decision to a point. My only departure is in preferring, for reasons explained, to reserve my personal use of the term "marriage" to that between a man and woman, while leaving others free to use the term however they wish.

 

Second if "legitimate" sex and offspring are the main reason for marriage then what about couples unable to have children or those that choose not too.

 

See my response to newbmormon in post #39 above.

 

And the state has pretty much concluded that in 2014 it has no business in the sex lives of its citizens.

 

???  The irony is that back in the day the hue and cry of gay activist was that they just wanted the government to get out of their bedrooms and bathhouses, and this by striking down prohibitions against sodomy. However, once they got their wish, it didn't take them long before demanding that the government be brought back into their bedrooms and bathhouses by way of legalizing gay solemnized relationships, all with the intent of legitimizing and normalizing gay sex.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

There are so many talks about how the priesthood holders learn and develop the sensitivies, emapathy, tolerance, justice, listening skills, ability to lead, and moral authority and proper use of that authority within the bounds of a properly sealed and sanctified marriage...

 

I hope that all priesthood holders will use these skills to become better leaders, instructors, examples of loving partnerships with God and better men.

 

Just a thought to add to the discussion..

wb

 

Just a few examples:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/nurturing-marriage?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/honor-the-priesthood-and-use-it-well?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/history-and-organization-of-the-priesthood/lesson-9-duties-of-the-elder-and-the-high-priest?lang=eng

 

I would submit that these lesssons would hopefully be learned by all men and women that marry regardless of their membership in the church or whether they are heterosexual or homosexual couples?